Nomura’s Laser Digital Expands Crypto Venture Capital Arm with New Partner

Polymarket activity under scrutiny in Taiwan due to election contractsTaiwanese law enforcement is currently delving into the activities of online influencers and community members promoting Polymarket contracts related to the upcoming presidential election which is due to be held on Jan. 13.Polymarket is a New York-based Ethereum-centric prediction market. The platform runs on the Ethereum layer-2 scaling solution network Polygon. The project invites platform users to bet on the outcomes of a broad spectrum of events, ranging from politics to entertainment.Users deposit USDC stablecoin, choose an event to bet on and purchase “outcome shares” through USDC. The user has the ability to trade those shares anytime before the resolution of the contract.Photo by Ethan Lin on UnsplashPossible election law violationsThe Taiwanese investigation came to light in a report by Taiwan-based crypto publication BlockTempo, which was published last week. The investigation comes as concerns arose about potential violations of Taiwan’s Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act, which explicitly prohibits gambling on election outcomes.Multiple influencers and crypto community members have reportedly been subpoenaed for their involvement in Polymarket contracts, allowing users to place bets on the January election. At present, the betting pool for the election holds over $300,000, with a market prediction favoring the Democratic Progressive Party’s Lai Ching-te, also known as William Lai, with a 78% chance of winning.However, the legality of such betting activities is in question under Article 88–1 of Taiwan’s election law. It stipulates that anyone gambling on the outcome of an election or recall in a public place or a place open to the public may face imprisonment, short-term detention or a fine of up to NT$100,000 ($3,196.85).Sherman Lin, an attorney at Taipei-based Lin & Partners, emphasized the seriousness with which law enforcement views gambling activities related to presidential elections in Taiwan. He explained that broad legal interpretations under the Presidential Election and Recall Act have led to investigations and convictions of gambling website operators targeting Taiwanese gamblers. Lin stated:“Law enforcement agencies in Taiwan are vigilant in investigating any gambling activities related to presidential elections.”“Broad legal interpretations have been applied to gambling crimes under the Presidential Election and Recall Act, leading to investigations and convictions of gambling website operators in Taiwan targeting Taiwanese gamblers,” he added.Prohibited in United StatesComparing the situation to the United States, where gambling on election outcomes is illegal in most states, Lin noted that enforcing such regulations often falls under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Polymarket’s Terms of Use explicitly prohibit usage by U.S. persons.Despite potential legal consequences for gambling activities in Taiwan, including participation, promotion and platform hosting for betting pools like Polymarket, Lin pointed out that enforcing actions against overseas entities poses jurisdictional challenges. Taiwan’s legal reach is primarily limited to domestic actors, creating complexities in addressing decentralized platforms like Polymarket.Lin suggested that law enforcement may focus on online influencers who promoted the Polymarket contract, as seen in previous cases involving the collapse of the unlicensed crypto exchange JPEX in Hong Kong.Moreover, while there are legal precedents for pursuing centralized entities organizing election gambling, Lin highlighted that no established legal precedent in Taiwan currently exists for decentralized platforms organizing election betting.

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

The South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) announced on Dec. 26 through an official website press release that it has imposed sanctions on 15 North Korean individuals and one institution for their involvement in illegal cyber activities, including cryptocurrency theft, to fund the country's nuclear and missile programs.Photo by Micha Brändli on UnsplashAccording to the MOFA, the sanctioned individuals have been stationed overseas as part of the 313 General Bureau of the North Korean Munitions Industry Department (MID), which is already subject to UN Security Council sanctions. The bureau is allegedly responsible for deploying North Korean tech personnel abroad and using the foreign currency earned to finance the development of nuclear weapons and missiles. The sanctions, which will come into effect at 15:00 UTC on Dec. 29, will prohibit financial and foreign exchange transactions with the designated entities unless approved in advance by South Korean authorities. Violations of these sanctions may result in legal consequences under South Korean law. North Korea behind 61% of 2024’s stolen cryptoThe MOFA cited a recent report by blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis, which showed that North Korean crypto hackers took roughly $1.34 billion in 47 separate incidents in 2024. These thefts account for 61% of the year's total stolen crypto funds and 20% of all incidents. In 2023, they had stolen approximately $660.5 million over 20 incidents. It's believed these funds help finance North Korea's weapons of mass destruction programs. The ministry further stated that North Korean tech personnel are often dispatched to countries such as China, Russia and nations in Southeast Asia and Africa, where they disguise their identities and secure work from global tech companies. Some of these individuals are also suspected of engaging in information theft and cyber attacks. Emphasizing the threat these activities pose to cybersecurity and international peace, South Korea has vowed to continue its efforts to thwart North Korea's illicit cyber activities in cooperation with the international community.